There is an economic and financial train wreck rumbling through the world economy. Namely, the Great China Ponzi. In all of economic history, there has never been anything like it. It is only a matter of time before it ends in a spectacular collapse, leaving the global financial bubble of the last two decades in shambles.

But here’s the Wall Street meme that is stupendously wrong and that engenders blind complacency with respect to the impending upheaval. To wit, the same folks who brought you the myth of the BRICs miracle would now have you believe that China is undergoing a difficult but doable transition——-from an economy driven by booming exports and monumental fixed asset investment to one based on steady as she goes US-style consumption and services.

There may well be some bumps and grinds along the way, we are cautioned, such as the recent stock market and currency turmoil. But do not be troubled—–the great locomotive of the world economy will come out the other side better and stronger. That’s because the wise, pragmatic and powerful leaders and economic managers who deftly guide China’s version of capitalism have the capacity to make it all happen.

Last week began the blackout period for companies buying back their own shares, as we are nearing the end of a quarter, when stock buybacks are put on hold. It also began the bust of the stock market’s recent rally. If you followed my last article, you’d see that this is exactly what I expected the stock market to do because nearly all of the buoyancy in the recent market rally has been created by companies buying back stocks and sometimes focusing the buybacks on specific major shareholders.

The big players use stock buybacks to save themselves

Take a look at the chart above, which shows how the stock market is almost exactly tracking stock buybacks. Note the last time buybacks hit a zenith (in 2008) similar to the present. As soon as stock buybacks ended, the stock market crashed. As the market grew more desperate, there were more buybacks by corporations in an attempt to keep their share prices rising but perhaps also as an engineered exit for major stockholders. (Use the company money to buy back shares so that massive buybacks don’t have any negative impact on stock prices.)

There are numerous duplications of effort in the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP): from multiple U.S.-funded climate-modeling groups, to multiple producers of the same climate-related data. Why are taxpayers supporting all of those duplications of effort?

Climate models are the basis for long-term prognostications of the impacts of human-induced global warming and climate change. Unknown to most climate laypersons, climate models are not simulating Earth’s climate as it existed in the past, as it exists now, or as it might exist in the future.

Oil prices have surged on hopes of a freeze in global production. But a more hidden factor is also fueling the price spike: terror attacks on oil facilities.

Sabotage to key oil pipelines have driven global supply outages to “elevated” levels estimated at more than 3 million barrels per day, according to the Royal Bank of Canada.

For instance, last month a critical pipeline in Nigeria was bombed, taking around 250,000 barrels of crude offline until May.

Extremist groups pose a “clear and present danger” to energy facilities, especially those in oil-rich North Africa, RBC wrote in a recent research report.

Oil prices have rallied recently to around $40 today from $26 a barrel in mid-February. The sharp rise has been largely attributed to an effort to “freeze” oil output by Saudi Arabia, Russia and other producers. Investors are also betting U.S. production will decline sharply in 2016.

But geopolitical jitters and supply outages are also playing an important role. That’s a change from much of the past two years when these concerns were overshadowed by the epic supply glut and Iran’s efforts to ramp up production.

“OPEC outages in hotspots like those recently seen in Iraq and Nigeria are a good reminder of how quickly volumes can be sidelined,” RBC wrote. “As the market gradually tightens, we think these hotspots will return to center stage.”

Goldman Sachs has been predicting the demise of gold for the past few years. Back in July of 2015, Jeff Currie (Global Head of Commodities Research at the investment firm) went on record predicting the price of the yellow metal would fall below $1,000 per ounce by the start of 2016. However, that prediction failed to materialize; despite the fact that gold was already below $1,100 at the time he made the call.

Nevertheless, being wrong on the direction of gold last year did not prevent him from once again urging investors to short the commodity in February of this year; claiming it would fall to $1,000 per ounce within 12 months. His rationale for anticipating the price decline is that gold is primarily a “safe haven” asset in times of economic and market turmoil and that the U.S. faced very little recession risk—so there is no reason for investors to seek the shelter of gold.

However, Goldman Sachs, which is a bastion of Keynesian apologists–like most on Wall Street, fails to grasp what really drives the price of gold…and what has caused it to surge 18% so far in 2016.

On December 15, 1791, the states of our fledgling democracy ratified ten amendments, which became known as the Bill of Rights.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights states it clearly, “the conventions of a number of states …expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.” The intent of the Bill Of Rights was to restrain government abuses. These were designed to be checks and balances on the government. The second amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Here, the founders state that to keep the state free, people have the right to keep and bear arms. The “why” we need a second amendment is clear: to protect a free state – to protect freedom.

James Madison initially proposed these amendments on June 8, 1789. Only six years prior to their proposal, the Treaty of Paris, ending the War with King George, was signed in 1783. The final agreement with England on America’s boundaries did not occur until 1795, with the Jay Treaty. The Bill of Rights was passed within eight years of a bloody war where citizen soldiers picked up their own weapons and overthrew a tyrannical government. It is clear that the authors of the second amendment intended to provide the citizenry a means to defend freedom from government, both at home and abroad.

Lack of Evidence: For the past several weeks, TWTW has addressed the evidence supporting EPA’s finding that human greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), endanger human health and welfare (EPA Endangerment Finding). We found little or no physical evidence supporting the finding. Without this finding the EPA has no legal basis for regulating CO2, and the administration has no logical basis for its energy plan of eliminating coal-fired power plants through CO2 regulations. These regulations are based on a controversial 2007 Supreme Court decision stating that CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, even though it is not a defined category pollutant. According to the decision, before regulating, the EPA must find greenhouse gases (particularly CO2) endanger public health.

The five assessment reports (ARs) of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produce some excellent science, but also misleading assertions. The so-called “hot spot”, mistakenly called the distinct human fingerprint in IPCC’s second assessment report of Working Group I (AR-2 1995), has not been found to exist. There is no discernible increase in atmospheric warming trends over the tropics centered at about 33,000 feet. (Note: it is the warming trends over time, increasing with altitude, that are important. A lapse rate, the decline in actual temperatures with increasing altitude would still be observed, but the rate should decline over time.) In fact, the AR-2 synthesis report, which followed the Working Group I report, makes no mention of the hot spot in the section titled: “The Balance of Evidence Suggests a Discernible Human Influence on Global Climate.” (p. 22).